CSIRO PUBLISHING The Rangeland Journal, 2020, 42, 309–321 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ20039

Custodianship of wildlife on private land to support conservation – an Australian model

George WilsonA,B,D, Melanie EdwardsB and Neil ByronC

AAustralian National University, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. BAustralian Wildlife Services, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia. CUniversity of Canberra, Institute of Applied Ecology, ACT 2617, Australia. DCorresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Abstract. A large proportion of the world’s extinctions have occurred in Australia, and lists continue to grow, notwithstanding government and philanthropic efforts. Most losses have been on private land, so relying on national parks and reserves is not enough to reverse trends and meet Australia’s responsibilities. This paper proposes a model that could increase abundance and distribution of Australia’s , while providing financial incentives to private landholders to do so. It addresses the question, can landholder management of wildlife, and a form of private ownership, remedy shortfalls in government funding for biodiversity conservation and the resulting consequences of vast biodiversity losses? Landholders currently invest in propagating introduced livestock species, but they are prevented by current regulations from investing in a similar manner in threatened Australian native species. Market-based incentives could increase the distribution and abundance of species on private land and help protect the habitat of other biodiversity. The enabling changes would be contentious to some people but are consistent with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Sustainable Use policy. Different versions of wildlife privatisation have been successfully applied internationally: there is urgency for Australia to draw on these experiences and develop its own model to encourage and support wildlife on private freehold land. The model proposed in this paper focuses on: identifying locally overabundant populations or captive-bred populations as sources of supply; finding landholders and philanthropists who would like to have custodianship of species; enabling entrepreneurs to respond to demand; and bringing the two together where there is scope for a market-based sharing economy. Encouraging wildlife custodianship on private freehold land would be mutually beneficial, as it would not only result in an increase in biodiversity, but the economic value of wildlife could provide an income to landholders as well as enhancing Australia’s conservation system.

Keywords: biodiversity, conservation, habitat restoration, land clearing, private land, sustainable harvesting, threatened species, wildlife custodianship.

Received 13 May 2020, accepted 31 August 2020, published online 8 October 2020

Introduction Protected Areas, Ernesto Enkerlin Hoeflich, has stated that most Current policies and expenditure on conserving Australian protected areas on state-owned lands, while invaluable, are not threatened species are not working. Around 6–10% of the enough to achieve world conservation targets on their own world’s extinctions, including 35% of the world’s modern (Stolton et al. 2014). mammal extinctions, have occurred in Australia (Johnson 2006; Australia’s lack of improvement led concerned scientists to Woinarski et al. 2019). Threatened species lists continue to write to the Prime Minister in 2019 to inform him that Australia grow, notwithstanding government and philanthropic efforts. was amid an extinction crisis (Radford et al. 2019). Fires across Expenditure to address need is ,15% of what is needed to avoid eastern Australia in the summer of 2019/20 have made the extinctions and recover threatened species (Wintle et al. 2019). situation worse (Dickman 2020), and environmental degrada- Current strategies include the generation and maintenance of tion is likely to continue with current carbon emissions national parks and philanthropically funded reserves. Although (Sherwood et al. 2020). necessary and important for conservation, reliance on them is There is a need for innovative biodiversity conservation insufficient and species protected in the areas are continuing to paradigms and an urgency for Australia to trial new ways to be listed as threatened (Figgis et al. 2005; Hayward 2011). This encourage and support wildlife on private freehold land. Tenure is a global issue; the Chair of the World Commission of or custodianship of wildlife is a vital component of overseas

Journal compilation Ó Australian Rangeland Society 2020 Open Access CC BY-NC www.publish.csiro.au/journals/trj 310 The Rangeland Journal G. Wilson et al.

Private land Conservation National • Higher value, goals Reserve System more productive • Species decline • Limited funding & ecosystems omitted & habitat resources restricts • No incentives to destruction programs engage in biodiversity • Failure to meet • Many Reserves & wildlife targets targets operate in isolation

Altruism alone contributing to Some success for limited private individual programs habitat & species conservation

Fig. 1. Private lands are represented on the left, with Australia’s reserve system represented on the right. The two are not integrated, leading to failure of Australia’s conservation goals. There is only a small amount of land dedicated to the National Reserve System relative to the number of species and habitats which need preserving. Under current incentives the role of private land in assisting attainment of conservation goals is limited and based on altruism alone.

Distribution and abundance of species increases

Additional Revenue landholders increases from become Conservation Private land involved, leased National reserves goals • Introduction motivated wildlife to • System expands of wildlife by altruistic expand property rights and possibly Government financial Programs reward

Private lands link fragmented habitats

Fig. 2. When landholders have wildlife property rights there can be greater contribution by private landholders of nominated species on private lands (represented on the left). Financial benefits could motivate landholders to contribute to an effective expansion of the National Reserve Scheme (represented on the right) and attainment of larger conservation goals when compared with the current system (reproduced from Wilson et al. 2018). wildlife conservation projects. Fig. 1 shows the current discon- positive outcomes in species and (Child nect between the National Reserve System and the role of et al. 2012). The application of the concept to Australia could private lands in achieving national conservation goals. Enabling integrate private land more effectively with the objectives of wildlife custodianship and management of wildlife, previously Biodiversity Strategies and National Reserve Programs (Fig. 2). vested in governments, can lead to innovation, competition and Box 1 details wildlife ownership in Australia and defines Custodianship of native species The Rangeland Journal 311

Box 1. Definitions applying to private custodianship of wildlife to support conservation – an Australian model

In Australia, the State Governments (i.e. the Crown) own wildlife; protected animals are the ‘‘property’’ of the State or Crown. Generally ‘‘ownership’’ changes when wildlife is taken under a license, permit or other authority issued or given under a regulation, and under a conservation plan. In this paper we suggest a form of ‘‘private custodianship of wildlife’’ could apply to living animals on private lands. Private custodianship of wildlife is defined as the duty of a person entrusted with the care of wildlife. Custodianship is distinguishable from other terms of proprietorship as it emphasises a duty of care, which is essential to biodiversity conservation. Other similar terms related to proprietorship that may be incorporated into custodianship policy include the following:  Management: the control and organisation of wildlife and natural resources which influence wildlife.  Ownership: Having responsibility for wildlife.  Property: wildlife or an element of wildlife that belong to a landholder or the legal right to own and use wildlife.  Right: allowance to do something to or with wildlife, legally or officially.  Tenure: the conditions under which land or wildlife is owned.

different proprietorship terms relating to wildlife custodianship. income, some of which could be fed into conservation. This Market-based incentives and private custodianship of wildlife paper follows discussion at a ‘World Cafe´’ table at the Austra- have been previously proposed as a potential remedy for short- lian Rangeland Society Conference in Canberra, September falls in government funding for conservation (Wilson et al. 2019 (Box 2), which discussed the following question, can 2017) but they have not been considered seriously as policy, and private landholder management of wildlife and a form of private we believe further examination and development is required. custodianship remedy shortfalls in government funding for The principle that property rights could also be applied to biodiversity conservation and the resulting consequences of sustainable harvesting and consumptive use of abundant and vast biodiversity losses? The discussion led us to reinvestigate widely distributed species such as kangaroos is discussed a model that could be adopted by Australia to provide economic elsewhere (Wilson et al. 2017). incentive to private landholders while increasing Australia’s Innovative methods to manage resources are not new to biodiversity. An earlier version of the model was proposed by Australia. Water management reform has been ongoing, with Wilson et al. (2017). Australia regarded as an exemplar for aggressive pursuit of Our proposal applies to free ranging species (those that need innovation (Hanemann and Young 2020). In fisheries manage- special protection from introduced predators) as well as those ment, individual transferrable quotas are set by government and that would benefit from prescribed habitat management on allow species-specific total catch; they can be bought, sold and landholders’ properties. It enables acquisition of animals, their leased (Boyer 2019). Wildlife conservationists and policy movement, and freedom for landholders to innovate, just as they makers can learn from these precedents. can for other animals under their care. Landholders can trade in exotic wildlife such as deer (Cervus This paper examines current legal obstacles to owning sp.), alpacas (Vicugna pacos), bison (Bison bison), and of course wildlife, the value of wildlife, species to which the proposals domesticated species such as sheep (Ovies aries), cattle (Bos could apply and proposes trials to test an Australian model. taurus), horses (Equus caballus) and other livestock, but not Encouraging wildlife custodianship on private freehold land native species. Legislation, which differs by state, does allow would be mutually beneficial, as it would not only result in an some common species of captive-bred native wildlife, mostly increase in biodiversity, but the economic value of wildlife birds and some reptiles, to be kept and traded without a licence. could provide an income to landholders as well as enhancing However, for the majority of wildlife species, trade is prohibited Australia’s conservation system. (see NSW requirements as an example; NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment 2019). Zoos and not-for- Importance of property rights and private custodianship profit conservation organisations have special exempting Well defined, secure and transferable property rights help to provisions. establish and capture the value derived from managing resources, State wildlife legislation is further complicated because thereby providing an incentive for owners to use and maintain ownership applies to emus (Dromaius novaehollandiae) and them efficiently (Demsetz 1967). Property rights encourage crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus and C. Johnstoni) when they are owners to consider long-term implications of their activities, and farmed in confined spaces. Kangaroos, wallaroos and some so increase the likelihood of sustainable management (Cooney wallabies (Macropus fuliginosus, M. giganteus, M. robustus, et al. 2015). They are consistent with the quote from Jack Lang, M. rufogriseus, M. rufus and Thylogale billardierii) can be sold ‘[i]n the race of life, always back self-interest; at least you know after they are harvested, but not when they are alive. it’s trying’ (Wikiquote contributors 2019). In our view, a more objective assessment of these rules and Extension of the concept of private custodianship of wildlife regulations should enable private landholders to have a form of and property rights to private landholders is not new. It is tenure over select species on their properties. It could result not important because it motivates wildlife managers to consider only in an increase in biodiversity, but an additional source of the cost of their actions on future availability, and the possibility 312 The Rangeland Journal G. Wilson et al.

Box 2. Summary of the ‘World Cafe´’ discussion at the Australian Rangelands Conference 2019

Options for custodianship were discussed at one of the tables at a World Cafe´ at the Australian Rangeland Society Conference in Canberra in September 2019. The table asked if Australia could emulate overseas experience through the following discussion points.  Would a form of private custodianship or a lease over wildlife improve biodiversity conservation and create incentives for the use of terrestrial native fauna to be more sustainable?  Would landholders invest in better management of threatened species (iconic wallabies, numbats, bandicoots, bilbies and koalas) if permitted to do so? The World Cafe´ also considered if the same policies and licensing procedures could be applied to free ranging, abundant species such as kangaroos. The World Cafe´ discussion concluded that it is illogical for private landholders to be able to trade introduced species but not most Australian native species, particularly mammals, and that further action should be initiated to investigate changes that would enable private landholders to interact with and have responsibility for wildlife native to their land.

of overuse. Property rights encompassing private custodianship Internationally of wildlife has been implemented internationally, contributing In many Western European countries, ownership of wildlife to increases in biodiversity and assisting the recovery of threat- derives from common law and is largely (but not wholly) vested ened species (Ashley and Barnes 1996). in private landholders. Although there are differences between The allocation of property rights to wildlife is consistent with Scotland and England, government regulation of wildlife in the the findings of the 1961 Arusha Conference (International United Kingdom is relatively minimal. Landholders control Union for the Conservation of Nature 1963) for the conservation most rights to game and fish and routinely charge for hunting of Modern African States, which concluded that: and fishing privileges for red and roe deer (Cervus elaphus), red ‘only by the planned utilisation of wildlife as a renewable grouse (Lagopus lagopus scotia), partridge (Alectoris rufa and natural resource, either for protein or as a recreational Perdix perdix) and pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) (Lueck attraction, can wildlife conservation and development be 1989). Where the State controls large acreages of managed economically justified in competition with agriculture, stock forests and hunting areas, it also owns the wildlife. ranching and other forms of land use’. In North America and India, federal and/or state governments control direct access to, and use of, wildlife (but not wholly). In Notwithstanding the general wisdom of these observations, the United States of America and Canada, the government holds wildlife property rights vary around the world from predomi- wildlife in a Public Trust Doctrine for their citizens. In India, nantly state-owned (e.g. Australia) to predominantly private wildlife is the property of the state government except in landholder-based (e.g. South Africa). Indigenous ownership National Parks or Sanctuaries, where ownership vests in the responsibility and rights to access wildlife also vary along this national government. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, owner- spectrum. ship is not exclusive to one party; in North America, there are circumstances where ownership of some wildlife (e.g. bison) is Who ‘owns’ wildlife and is responsible for it? private. Wildlife is formally res nullius in southern Africa, but 40 The delegation of ownership of natural resources is important years ago South Africa, Zimbabwe and Namibia altered their because it sets rights to access, use, benefit from and sell a given legal regimes to enable private landholders to effectively exer- product or experience. If extended to wildlife, custodianship cise rights of ownership after fencing their properties. They have could be translated into rights to manage wildlife for biodiver- been empowered to manage, use, control access to, and sell sity conservation. In an ideal world, landholders would do this wildlife; in this context, the wildlife remains wild, landholders voluntarily, and although some philanthropists do undertake manage the landscape to optimise production and reproduction such tasks, many others require personal benefits. Returns could and can enclose the herd. Regulatory questions arise if land- come from tourism and sale of progeny. holders want to make wildlife even more commercially valu- Wildlife ownership laws have developed and evolved under a able, for example by use of artificial insemination to increase variety of national circumstances. They incorporate tradition fertility or to encourage favourable phenotypes. and society, land ownership (public or private), conservation, public awareness or status of the species and resource exploita- Australia tion. Across the world, there are three main models of ‘wildlife ownership’ – res nullius (no ownership), private ownership, and State and federal legislation government ownership; however, these models are not mutually In Australia, state governments have primary responsibility exclusive and there are statutes in place which provide for for the natural resources, including native fauna. The Common- government ownership rights in what would be considered a wealth Government has constitutional power over exports, private ownership model and statutes that allow for private including exports of native fauna, plus responsibility for imple- ownership rights under a government ownership model. menting international treaties. State legislation such as the Custodianship of native species The Rangeland Journal 313

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 in New South Wales (NSW) description is not exhaustive and further elaboration would protects animals as the property of the Crown until they are require stakeholder consultation. lawfully captured or killed. In Queensland, as another example, the Act 1992 similarly protects all native Scope animals. The model proposed in this paper focuses on Australia’s need Wildlife ceases to be property of the state when taken under a given the status of threatened species, population sizes, and the licence; ownership then transfers to a non-state owner under distribution and attributes of public land given over to conser- circumstances which are highly regulated. Thus, governments vation compared with land in private use. have hegemony over the management of living wildlife. Neither Approximately 70% of Australian land is privately managed responsibility nor custodianship are delegated to the property as freehold, leasehold or Aboriginal land, so activities on it are of owner responsible for the habitat of the wildlife. vital importance to biodiversity conservation, especially given A few species of terrestrial fauna can be used for commercial that most threatened ecosystems exist only on private land purposes (for example, kangaroos and emus), exhibited in zoos, (Figgis et al. 2005). Fig. 3 shows the extent of privately- moved from one area to another, bred in captivity or farmed. owned areas and that they are mostly given over to grazing on Native fish and other aquatic fauna fall under different legal native vegetation or modified pastures. These are the land uses to management regimes allowing greater access to recreational which our proposed model would apply with the aim of use, commercial utilisation, zoo exhibitions, translocations, improving the security of Australian biodiversity. breeding and farming. Zoos require a permit for almost all Australian species, with Guiding principles the condition that the keeping of the animals contributes to We consider that the following principles should guide the education. The animals and their progeny can be sold with the development of an Australian model of wildlife custodianship. consent of the government and if specific breeding conditions 1. Use sites that are as unmodified as possible. are met. 2. Use locally abundant (wild, captive or rehabilitated), but Some species may be kept as pets, although the regulation nationally scarce, native species, to stock enclosures. process is complex and differs substantially from state to state 3. Establish a licensing process that considers legal land classi- (Cooney et al. 2010). In most jurisdictions keeping of native fication, native title rights, land use, and conservation signif- mammals is more tightly restricted than keeping of native icance of habitat type for the proposed species. reptiles and birds, and some jurisdictions are more permissive 4. Ensure compliance with animal ethics and welfare standards. about the keeping of native mammals than others. All may be 5. Consider experience and training qualifications of partici- kept in Northern Territory and South Australia, and none in pants in translocation and husbandry of wildlife. Queensland, Western Australia, and Australian Capital Terri- 6. Base marketing and promotion on transparent monitoring tory. In NSW, 41 bird species can be kept as pets without a and evaluation. keeper’s licence. Other species require a keeper’s licence, and some species cannot be kept at all. Pets may only be obtained Implementation from sellers and must not be taken from the wild. Regulations also control rehabilitation of injured or orphaned We propose testing and then wider implementation of the model wildlife, keeping for scientific purposes and destruction of pest as a two-stage process. The first stage would be a research-based or overabundant wildlife. They allow Aboriginal people to trial under current legislation. The initial trial would involve conduct activities in the exercise of their rights under native translocations onto land owned and managed by private land- title and to use resources, including wildlife, for domestic and holders, but with government and philanthropic funding sup- personal needs (discussed further below). port. If this proves to be viable (i.e. if landholders have the ability to translocate species under current legislation), the trial would Potential for licenses under existing legislation provide the basis for changes to regulations and policies that would then enable commercial transactions. In the second stage Current wildlife legislation and translocation policies have of roll out of the model, candidate species could be those listed no specific reference to private landholders. Therefore, there is on the threatened species list but without recovery plans. scope to discuss several policy options that could enable wildlife Ringma et al. (2018) note that there are 29 predator-susceptible movement to and from private land. Wildlife could be (1) leased, taxa remaining unrepresented in predator proof enclosures. (2) leased with the goal of breeding or (3) owned (fenced/ Focus would be on non-migratory, terrestrial fauna to reduce the unfenced). In NSW, for example, legislation enables the crea- complexity which might arise from federal migratory and tion of licences to do things that would otherwise be offences marine species legislation. and thus the Environment Agency Head could grant a Biodiver- sity Conservation Licence to hold wildlife under one, or all Objectives of the stage one trial three, of these options. The Head could also enable the translo- cation of wildlife to private land with associated conditions. The purpose of the trial is to test if enabling private custodian- ship of wildlife on private land will result in more abundant and widely distributed wildlife populations than currently occur A proposal for an Australian model under the government-dominated processes which have limited Components of a model under which Australian landholders funding. The trial would include several steps, including could gain custodianship of wildlife are outlined below. The assessing demand, identifying sources of supply, applying for 314 The Rangeland Journal G. Wilson et al.

Land use Nature conservation Irrigated pastures Other protected areas Irrigated cropping Minimal use Irrigated horticulture Grazing native vegetation Intensive animal and plant production Production forestry Rural residential and farm infrastructure Plantation forestry Urban intensive uses Grazing modified pastures Mining and water Dryland cropping Water Dryland horticulture

Fig. 3. Australia’s land use is classified into several categories and dominated by grazing on native vegetation. If the land use most appropriate to the proposed model includes ‘grazing on native vegetation (white)’, ‘modified pastures (orange)’, and other protected areas most of which are in Indigenous ownership (light purple) there is a large covering of land which could be attributed to conservation on private lands (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences 2011). appropriate licences, monitoring and evaluation (see Fig. 4). researched so that translocation requirements and maintenance Some steps would be undertaken by entrepreneurs and innova- in a new habitat are evidence-based. tors, others by governments and regulators. Further research and Demand could be further assessed from the development of a planning of proposals is needed to bring supply and demand state or national database of landholders interested in participat- together. ing and the species that they would like to support. The database could be managed by an interested conservation organisation Assessing demand and could be established from landholder surveys or an open Ultimately private custodianship could apply to any Austra- invitation to contribute via newsletters. It could include land- lian wildlife, but species which have been previously translo- holders who already have ‘predator proof’ fences that have been cated and become locally overabundant or in need of erected for wild dog management, and which can be upgraded to rehabilitation following fires, could be used to trial the model be effective for fox and cat control. initially. Interest from private investors would likely be in Predator proof enclosures have recently improved Australian supporting the more charismatic and iconic species, such as mammal conservation by reducing predation risk (Ringma et al. koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) (see Box 3), numbats 2018). More are needed across a wider distribution in order to (Myrmecobius fasciatus), quolls (Dasyurus spp.), brush-tailed increase the security of animals they contain and reduce the bettongs (Bettongia penicillata), rare wallabies and ground impact of other natural hazards including fire, flood and disease dwelling birds; more detail can be found in Wilson et al. on populations confined to a few sites. These are the facilities (2017). Ideally, candidate species would also be extensively that would create demand. Custodianship of native species The Rangeland Journal 315

PROPOSED PROCESS

DEMAND SUPPLY MARKET PLANNING APPROVAL

Private Animals from Internet brings Collaborators plan Government landholders, overabundant local supply & demand and cost control regulates leases, community groups populations of participants of predators, monitors trade & and corporate charismatic species. together. The breeding, habitat sets animal buyers motivated market includes management, and welfare codes. by altruism, Planning and entrepreneurs assisted financial gain, and negotiation would and philanthropists. recolonisation. Financiers aesthetic valuation. be necessary to They agree on approve confirm availability ownership, transfer Costs also expenditure. as a source. prices and leases include economic from government. and ecological monitoring.

Fig. 4. The proposed process of a trial to enable private custodianship of wildlife would cover an analysis of supply and demand of wildlife on private land, followed by marketing to encourage expansion of the model. Further planning and the inclusion of government regulations would instil confidence in the model.

Box 3. Koalas as an example of a species for trialling private custodianship

Koalas are a potential case study to demonstrate how private landholder custodianship could bring benefits to biodiversity. Their candidature has strengthened following destruction of so much koala habitat and incineration of animals in the fires of eastern Australia in the summer of 2019/20. Even before those events, the of koalas was in decline, and habitat fragmentation was continuing with consequences such as reduced genetic diversity. Ironically, koalas have been recorded as overabundant at 16 sites. Culling is out of the question, leaving fertility control, exclusion, habitat management and translocation as the only means to control numbers (Whisson and Ashman 2020). Adoption of the last depends on the availability of suitable sites to which koalas can be translocated. Such sites are in short supply in parks and reserves, however private landholders are interested in meeting the need. The task is to bring overpopulation and the opportunity together and eliminate the intervening impediments. Private landholders would be even more ready to participate and protect habitat if they had custodianship over the translocated koalas. Regulations or policy changes could first come as a trial which could be extended to an economic model where koalas could be traded amongst landholders and other stakeholders. Such financial incentives could increase the number of landholders involved and in turn increase the numbers and distribution of koalas. Through these mechanisms private landholders could provide much needed relief to overabundant populations and assist in the redistribution of koalas to their previous ranges in high quality woodlands that have been cleared for agriculture. Furthermore, carefully managed translocations address habitat fragmentation and genetic bottleneck issues. The concept is set out in Figs 1 and 2.

Identifying sources of supply 2015). It has a commercial and legal framework and is Over the past 20 years, site specific projects and assisted functioning effectively in Europe, with a European Wildlife colonisation with predator management have improved the Bank (EWB) which lends herds of wild herbivores for reintro- conservation status of mammal taxa in Australia (Woinarski duction into Europe’s natural landscapes. The EWB keeps et al. 2014; Ringma et al. 2018) and birds in New Zealand (Innes control over its reintroduction herds by making contracts with et al. 2015). In some of these, emigration and dispersal have third parties, mostly private local land managers/landowners. been so restricted that further assisted colonisation was needed At the expiry of the contract, a proportion of the animals to avoid damage to habitats. In a few cases, koalas for example, reintroduced are returned to the Bank. It is early days, and measures such as sterilisation have become necessary although challenges have been observed, there is intention for (Menkhorst 2008). Potential sources of species for which surplus animals to be available on the market and for investors assisted recolonisation is already underway or planned are to receive returns based on the animal’s reproductive rate. A suggested by Wilson et al. (2017). similar Australian Wildlife Bank could provide for a supply Rewilding (an international initiative) is the passive man- chain to interested landholders. Without an established ‘bank’, agement of ecological succession with the goal of restoring sources of supply of animals for ‘rewilding’ into already natural ecosystem processes and reducing the human control of established predator proof enclosures could initially come from landscapes. It can include the reintroduction of key native locally overabundant populations, captive-bred populations or species, including onto private land (Navarro and Pereira those animals in need of rehabilitation. 316 The Rangeland Journal G. Wilson et al.

Licensing or leasing work together to combine adjacent wildlife habitats into a single A licence (for example, a biodiversity licence in NSW) will ecological unit for less intensive management (Du Toit 2016). need to be obtained from the state government for translocation. Governments could put conditions on licenses for selling and In addition to a licence, a translocation proposal needs to be buying wildlife. Conditions could include number, age, sex, submitted for approval in NSW. reproductive condition and who can buy or sell. A training program could be established by the government for interested parties to ensure confidence in licenced dealers. Further confi- Monitoring and evaluating conservation benefit dence could come from property registrations, management Trial monitoring and evaluating could follow the ‘Saving our plans and monitoring bodies. It may also be necessary to amend Species Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Guidelines’ for legislation in some jurisdictions. conservation projects (Office of Environment and Heritage Properties, land types or regions could be registered for 2018). The landholder would be required to monitor access to nominated species. Properties of a certain size or which meet food, water and shelter, protection from disease and reproduc- certain conditions, such as being surrounded by a predator proof tive outputs under the current NSW policy for fence, could be registered. Registering known areas would make both breeding and released populations. Additionally, the land- licensing and monitoring easier for landholders to participate in holder would be required to implement pest and disease man- the wildlife custodianship model. agement procedures and any genetic management monitoring procedures. Translocation Shwiff et al. (2016) provide insight into the benefits and costs of conservation projects and examine several well developed Translocations are a widely accepted conservation tool and economic techniques to convert benefits and costs into monetary are not a new concept. The resources for translocations are values so they may be compared in a common metric. readily available and should be incorporated into further pro- grams or trials to progress private landholder conservation. There are several resources to advise on the best translocation Evaluate potential for market based economy practice, including ‘Guidelines for Reintroductions and other A trial evaluation would assess the extent of supply and Conservation Translocations’ (International Union for Conser- demand and the opportunity for interested landholders to receive vation of Nature Species Survival Commission 2013) and a financial incentives (for example, through sales of live animals, ‘Translocation Tactics Classification System’, which has been tourism and ethical investments). Where demand and supply developed to complement the guidelines and improve the out- come together through a market-based sharing economy, there comes of bird and mammal translocations (Batson et al. 2015). would be a commercially sustainable wildlife industry based on Within Australia, operational translocation policies which refer breeding for conservation and tourism. Governments or conser- to the International Union for Conservation of Nature docu- vation agencies responsible for these facilities could lease or sell ments have been developed by the states. animals to interested owners and managers of land outside Translocation can affect genetic diversity, which needs to be protected areas. The arrangements would be like those applying conserved within species so that they can adapt to changing to zoos or philanthropic organisations breeding threatened environments. Private custodianship in diverse locations will species. enable monitoring and managing of genetic diversity. Where animals are sourced from overabundant populations, care would Evaluate legislation compliances and challenges need to be taken to ensure animals are outbred to reduce any The ability to achieve wildlife custodianship under current bottle-necking events that have already taken place. Specific legislation will be evaluated, noting the time taken to achieve individuals could be selected for breeding to influence and retain objectives. Any difficulties or barriers would be identified to genetic diversity. assist in moderating bureaucracy and would be included in any review of wildlife policy. A study of water reform in Australia, Animal welfare with all its difficulties and challenges, could provide insights Australian States and Territories also have responsibility for into the nature of the reform processes required. animal welfare. In NSW, translocations must be conducted in accordance with the Prevention of Act 1979. Scope of potential regulatory requirements The NSW translocation policy lists actions likely to induce Licenses or leases and registration stress including capture, health screening, holding, transport and A licence, or lease, providing a private landholder with release (including adaptation to a new environment), and custodianship of a specific species would enable translocation recommends understanding how to support the animals through- onto the landholders’ property. It would enable the holding of out the entire translocation process to minimise these stresses the species for breeding and sale of progeny to other (suitably (Office of Environment and Heritage 2019). Additional poten- qualified and licenced) private landholders. The licensing pro- tial stressors must be considered for breeding populations cess could occur through the current state or territory environ- including sensory stimuli and those specific to the confinements. ment and wildlife departments and could be developed Holding environments should correspond to the natural envi- specifically for the private custodianship of wildlife. ronment of the animal as much as possible and reduce exposure Licence conditions could consider property size and relation- to stress-inducing situations. Even when released, stress may ship to species home ranges. They could also enable neighbours to continue to affect translocated individuals and individuals Custodianship of native species The Rangeland Journal 317

Box 4. Summary of native title and potential implications for wildlife custodianship

Native title provides for Indigenous rights and interests in land and waters to be exercised according to traditional law and customs. Under Section 211 of the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993, native title holders’ rights of fishing, hunting and food gathering for non-commercial purposes, and cultural and spiritual activities, may be carried out, despite any law or regulation, except where a law confers rights and interests only on, or for, the benefit of the Aboriginal community. Traditional use is referenced in state and territory legislation. For example, in NSW in the National Parks and Wildlife Act and regulations. Native title is extinguished on freehold and most leasehold land, whereas some pastoral leases only partially extinguish native title. If a proponent wanted to manage a native animal on land where native title exists, then they would need to take potential native title into account. Wildlife species could be the subject of native title if Indigenous owners are the managers or have joint management of the land. These issues have not been addressed in the courts for terrestrial species making the topic a fertile field for the legal fraternity. In a maritime precedent, the Blue Mud Bay decision by the High Court granted traditional owners exclusive native title rights to the intertidal zone in the Northern Territory. It meant to take fish for commercial sale, a person with a commercial licence also needs to have permission to go into the boundaries of Aboriginal land and the water over aboriginal land (National Native Title Tribunal 2009).

should be monitored for food, water and shelter availability to offspring. A guideline or code of practice could be developed to improve translocation success. assist landholders to implement best management practices. Compliance with management plans could be assessed by Legal classifications of land types for wildlife institutions or conservation agencies conducting scientific custodianship research on the property. Land in Australia can be classified as crown land, leasehold (including pastoral leasehold) and freehold. Ownership of crown Trade land is retained by the crown. Pastoral leasehold is a title that Governments could put conditions on biodiversity licenses allows an area of crown land to be used for the limited purposes for selling and buying wildlife. Conditions could include num- of grazing of livestock and associated activities; it is a limited ber, age, sex, reproductive condition and who can buy or sell. property right and does not provide the leaseholder with all the Taking NSW as the example, it is an offence to sell threatened or rights that attach to freehold land. Specific conditions are often protected animals under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act attached to pastoral leases, including the type of activity that 2016 Section 2.5. However, under Division 3 of the same act, may be permitted. The primary responsibility for the adminis- Section 2.11, the Environment Agency Head can grant a licence tration of pastoral leases rests with the relevant state or territory (a biodiversity conservation licence) to a person that authorises government. Depending on the state/territory, pastoral leases the doing of an act that would otherwise constitute an offence may be for specific terms or held in perpetuity. As specific under Division 1 or under any other provision of the act. A conditions are often attached to leasehold land, including licence granted under this section could be generated to enable the type of activity that may be permitted, it would need to be the trade of wildlife. determined on a case by case basis whether or not native wildlife could be introduced onto leasehold land, or if further permis- Discussion sions are required. The purpose of the wildlife on the land, for At the Australian Rangelands Society Conference 2019, ‘World example for conservation or tourism, may affect whether wild- Cafe´’ participants thought that the type of change outlined above life can be moved to leasehold land. would be contentious, but that it would be consistent with the Freehold title provides the landholder with unrestricted International Union for the Conservation of Nature Policy ownership in perpetuity, and the right to deal with that land, Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources: subject to compliance with applicable laws in each state or ‘Where an economic value can be attached to a wild living territory. Private custodianship of wildlife could occur unen- resource, perverse incentives removed, and costs and benefits cumbered on freehold land. internalised, favourable conditions can be created for invest- ment in the conservation and the sustainable use of the resource, Native title thus reducing the risk of resource degradation, depletion, and If native title exists it may have implications for the estab- habitat conversion’ (International Union for the Conservation of lishment of wildlife custodianship by private landholders (Box Nature 2000). 4). The extent of native title across Australia is shown in Fig. 5. History, tradition and social circumstance, conservation status, land tenure (public or private), home-range sizes of Management plans and monitoring species (large versus small) and resource exploitation (Lueck Management plans could be developed to demonstrate 1989) all have an impact on the laws governing wildlife protec- adherence to translocation policies and to define the future of tion. Some countries have revised their legal frameworks to 318 The Rangeland Journal G. Wilson et al.

Native title determined outcomes - March 2020 Native title exists (exclusive) (195) Native title exists (non-exclusive) (341) Native title does not exist (210) Native title extinguished (Not within determined area) (73)

Spatial data sourced from and used with permission of: Landgate (WA), Dept of Natural Resources, Mines & Energy (QLD) © The State of Queensland, Land & Property Information (NSW), Dept of Infrastructure, Planning & Logistics (NT), Dept of Planning Transport & Infrastructure (SA), Dept of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (VIC) , and Geoscience Australia, Australian Government. As at: 17/03/2020

Fig. 5. Native title across Australia is classified as exclusive, non-exclusive, does not exist or is extinguished. The pink shaded area on the map depicts areas where native title applications do not exist. Native title determined outcomes would need to be considered for any landholders granted custodianship of wildlife to ensure any activities comply with native title. Map reproduced with the kind permission of the National Native Title Tribunal (2020). respond to the current circumstances of wildlife conservation; there to extend these motivations beyond the reptile and bird Australia should do the same. In some states or territories this trade to the mammals, recognising that animal welfare and other would require changes to legislative schedules, whereas in regulations would need to be science-based and controlled. others only a change in policy and practice would be required. Most states have a consultative apparatus in place to channel On the spectrum of wildlife custodian arrangements between advice regarding policy changes to the relevant department. predominantly government and predominantly private, Australia Retailing animals direct from breeders to consumers is more sits closer to India than to South Africa. Although Australian likely to deliver good animal welfare outcomes than sale through regulations are ultimately set to protect wildlife, they are out- pet shops, although these may play an important role in support- dated, and an inhibition to landholders who want to get involved ing good husbandry through provision of equipment and sup- in more active species conservation on their own land. Manage- plies. Public advertising by commercial breeders and retailers is ment through custodianship could enable habitat restoration, problematic because it risks exciting interest in keeping animals reversal of land clearing and resilience in a changing climate. among those who are unsuitable (i.e. who have not properly In Australia, altruism is likely to be the driver for landholders considered the needs of the animal and their ability to meet who choose to become involved in arrangements like those them). However, there is a distinction to be drawn between outlined in this paper – the same people who make philanthropic advertising and educational material. donations to Bush Heritage Australia and the Australian Wild- life Conservancy, and who may be encouraged to go further Wildlife economics because of the proprietorship opportunity. People breed birds Generating an economic value for wildlife in the private sector is and trade in them because they want to own them, plus the not a new concept; it has occurred extensively in other jur- possibility of a (meagre) financial return. The opportunity is isdictions. For example, in Namibia, the annual net value from Custodianship of native species The Rangeland Journal 319 wildlife on private lands was N$30.6 million in 1972 and N$56 Complementing government initiatives and collaboration million in 1992. In the United States of America, annual New wildlife enterprises can bring about additional employment spending for wildlife-associated recreation on private land is opportunities for rural communities and more resilient, diverse estimated at $814 million in day fees and $1.48 billion for long- economies. In addition to landholders breeding and selling term leases (average 2001, 2006, 2011; in 2011 dollars; wildlife for economic and conservation purposes, wildlife Macaulay 2016). enterprises could bring additional jobs to communities in the Market mechanisms supported by effective regulation are form of wildlife transport, wildlife infrastructure, veterinary already used for a range of other ecosystem services including practices, auctioneers, wildlife ‘station’ hands, tourist guides biodiversity offsetting, carbon trading, and water shed services and resource managers. In 2019 the Australian Federal Gov- that ensure water is allocated efficiently for productive use and/ ernment established a Future Drought Fund to help farmers and or conservation value (Havemann et al. 2016). communities prepare and become more resilient. New wildlife Economic value from wildlife on private land in Australia enterprises, using species adapted to Australian conditions are could come from tourism, trade between other private land- prime candidates for these resilience-oriented projects and holders and conservation groups, and biodiversity and carbon activities. credits. Price setting could come from offers to buy eggs or Private landholder custodianship methodology would facili- breeding stock from approved custodians. The market could tate implementation of the Australian Government ‘Threatened determine the price, and the state determines the number that can Species Strategy’ (Australian Government 2015). Project devel- be sold and moved. opers, public stakeholders, private landholders and the invest- The economic value of wildlife would feed back into the ment community would bring their respective strengths and conservation system. Landholders who earn income from expertise to the table and collaborate (Huwyler et al. 2016). wildlife-based recreational activities are significantly more They would draw on the experiences and knowledge of the likely to participate in government conservation programs and management of tourism and wildlife in natural areas (Newsome to pay for private conservation practices (Macaulay 2016). et al. 2002) and apply them to private lands. Devolved responsibility and property rights could also be The methodology would also assist the NSW State Govern- applied to sustainable harvesting and consumptive use of abun- ment, which has begun reintroducing locally extinct mammal dant and widely distributed species such as kangaroos (Wilson species into NSW National Parks with the support of the and Edwards 2019). Doing so would encourage landholders to Australian Wildlife Conservancy and the Wildlife Restoration integrate kangaroos into their conventional production systems and Management Partnership led by the University of NSW (Wilson 2004; Cooney 2009). It would also enable them to (NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment regard kangaroos as an asset that can play a role in greenhouse 2014). In Canberra, the Australian Capital Territory Govern- gas reduction (Wilson and Edwards 2008). The same principles ment is collaborating with Australian National University and of sustainable harvest, with strong animal welfare regulation, seeking philanthropic support to restock Mulligans Flat with could encourage habitat protection and conservation of parrots threatened species (Australian National University 2015). and reptiles on private lands in order to supply existing markets Enabling the private sector to collaborate in threatened (Wilson and Smetana 1997). species management would expand funding raising opportu- Buying and selling wildlife – the southern African experience nities for other philanthropic organisations such as the ‘Founda- tion for National Parks and Wildlife’, the ‘Foundation for The South African model of wildlife conservation provides a Australia’s Most Endangered Species’, ‘Rewilding Australia’, developed platform for buying and selling wildlife (see detail in and the ‘Australian Ecosystem Foundation’, all of which have Cloete et al. 2016). Live wild animals can be bought from animal breeding and release programs which are chronically conservation authorities, boma (enclosure) auctions, catalogue under-resourced. The proposal would follow many aspects of auctions, internet auctions, wildlife capture and marketing the European rewilding precedent. enterprises, or directly from wildlife ranches. The animals are transported by the seller, buyer or professional wildlife trans- porter. Mean price per animal varies with supply and demand. Conclusion Initially, expansion was rapid, the demand appeared to be Our proposed Australian private custodianship of wildlife model insatiable and the turnover of wildlife auctions increased taps into a resource that is not currently being used efficiently, annually. Since 1991 the mean prices paid for various types of would drive economic expansion and encourage innovation. It wildlife have fluctuated due to a range of factors including would build on the limited economic value that wildlife already animal species, seasonal conditions, tourism and hunting has in some Australian jurisdictions, such as in zoos, as pets and demand, politics, genetics, intensive breeding, disease control, as a sustainable resource. Governments would cease to be the and auction type. Continuing challenges are the manipulation of sole proprietor of native wildlife, as is appropriate in a mixed populations for favourable genetic traits, hybridisation of economy. closely related taxa and inadequate training to improve man- Economic value for wildlife on private land in Australia agement (Cloete et al. 2016). could come from tourism, trade between other private land- The conclusion, however, is that the private wildlife ranching holders and conservation groups, and biodiversity and carbon industry has been beneficial to both the conservation of species credits. The value would feed back into the conservation system, and the South African economy. Both the value and the number as landholders who earn income from wildlife recreation activi- of rare animals on the market have increased. ties are significantly more likely to participate in government 320 The Rangeland Journal G. Wilson et al.

conservation programs and to pay for private conservation Dickman, C. (2020). More than One Billion Animals Killed in Australian practices. Generating an economic value for wildlife on private Bushfires. Available at: https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/ land would help drive increases in biodiversity. Australian 01/08/australian-bushfires-more-than-one-billion-animals-impacted.html species could have a greater chance of success in an environment (accessed 8 September 2020). where land clearing has been excessive, and the climate is Du Toit, J. G. (2016). Conservancies. In: ‘Game Ranch Management’. (Eds changing. J. du P. Bothma and J. G. du Toit.) pp. 22–26. (Van Schaik: Hatfield, Pretoria, South Africa.) Without changes of the sort identified in this paper Austra- Figgis, P., Humann, D., and Looker, M. (2005). Conservation on private land lia’s wildlife will remain a priceless but, paradoxically, com- in Australia. Parks 15, 19–29. mercially valueless asset managed by small groups of dedicated Hanemann, M., and Young, M. (2020). Water rights reform and water staff that are largely (under)-funded by governments. marketing: Australia vs the US West. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36, 108–131. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grz037 Conflicts of interest Havemann, T., Schuster, D., Leigh-Bell, J., Negra, C., and Levonen, A. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. (2016). ‘Levering Ecosystems, A Business-Focused Perspective on How Debt Supports Investments in Ecosystem Services.’ (Credit Suisse: Acknowledgements Zu¨rich, Switzerland.) Hayward, M. (2011). Using the IUCN Red List to determine effective We thank all participants who engaged at the 2019 ‘World Cafe´’ Australian conservation strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation 20, 2563–2573. Rangeland Society Conference in Canberra, September 2019. Their thoughts doi:10.1007/s10531-011-0091-3 and contributions were vital to the development of the model. Peter Gow- Huwyler, F., Ka¨ppeli, J., and Tobin, J. (2016). ‘; From land, Wendy Craik, Rosie Cooney and Fiona Garland were very active in the Niche to Mainstream: The Building of an Institutional Asset Class.’ discussion at the Cafe´ and provided valuable comments on the content of the (Credit Suisse Group AG and McKinsey Center for Business and manuscript. This research did not receive any external funding. Environment: Zu¨rich, Switzerland.) Innes, J., Burns, B., Sanders, A., and Hayward, M. W. (2015). The impact of References private sanctuary networks on reintroduction programmes in Australia Ashley, C., and Barnes, J. (1996). ‘Wildlife Use for Economic Gain: The and New Zealand. In: ‘Advances in Reintroduction Biology of Austra- Potential for Wildlife to Contribute to Development in Namibia.’ lian and New Zealand Fauna’. (Eds D. P. Armstrong, M. W. Hayward, D. (Directorate of Environmental Affairs Ministry of Environment and Moro and P. J. Seddon.) pp. 185–200. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Tourism: Windhoek, Namibia.) Vic., Australia.) Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commis- (2011). Land Use and Management Information for Australia. Available sion (2013). ‘Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation at: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/aclump (accessed 8 Septem- Translocations. Ver. 1.0.’ (International Union for Conservation of ber 2020). Nature Species Survival Commission: Gland, Switzerland.) Australian Government (2015). ‘Threatened Species Strategy.’ (Australian International Union for the Conservation of Nature (1963). ‘Conservation of Government: Canberra, ACT, Australia.) Nature and Natural Resources in Modern African States.’ (International Australian National University (2015). Mulligans Flat – Goorooyarroo Union for the Conservation of Nature: Morges, Switzerland.) Woodland Experiment. Available at: www.mfgowoodlandexperiment. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (2000). ‘IUCN Policy org.au (accessed 8 September 2020). Statement on Sustainable Use of Wild Living Resources.’ (Species Batson, W. G., Gordon, I. J., Fletcher, D. B., and Manning, A. D. (2015). Survival Commission: Amman, Jordan.) Translocation tactics: a framework to support the IUCN Guidelines for Johnson, C. (2006). ‘Australia’s Mammal Extinctions: a 50000 Year wildlife translocations and improve the quality of applied methods. History.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.) Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 1598–1607. doi:10.1111/1365-2664. Lueck, D. (1989). The economic nature of wildlife law. The Journal of Legal 12498 Studies 18, 291–324. doi:10.1086/468149 Boyer, A. (2019). Fish stocks update. Fish 27, 10–11. Macaulay, L. (2016). The role of wildlife-associated recreation in private Child, B., Musengezi, J., Parent, G. D., and Child, G. (2012). The economics land use and conservation: Providing the missing baseline. Land Use and institutional economics of wildlife on private land in Africa. Policy 58, 218–233. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.024 Pastoralism 2, 18. doi:10.1186/2041-7136-2-18 Menkhorst, P. (2008). Hunted, marooned, re-introduced, contracepted: a Cloete,P.C.,Bothma,J.duP.,duToit,J.G.,andVanRooyen,J.(2016).Buying history of Koala management in Victoria. Australian Zoologist 34,73–92. and selling wildlife. In: ‘Game Ranch Management’. (Eds J. du P. Bothma National Native Title Tribunal (2009). The Blue Bay Mud Decision. and J. G. du Toit.) pp. 641–665. (Van Shaik: Pretoria, South Africa.) Available at: www.nntt.gov.au/ (accessed 8 September 2020). Cooney, R. (2009). ‘Landholder Collaboration in Wildlife Management: National Native Title Tribunal (2020). Native Title Determined Outcome. Models for Landholders to Share Benefits of Kangaroo Management.’ Available at: http://www.nntt.gov.au/assistance/Geospatial/Pages/ (Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Maps.aspx (accessed 8 September 2020). ACT, Australia.) Navarro, L. M., and Pereira, H. M. (2015). Rewilding abandoned landscapes Cooney, R., Chapple, R., Doornbos, S., and Jackson, S. (2010). ‘Australian in Europe. In: ‘Rewilding European Landscapes’. (Eds L. M. Navarro Native Mammals as Pets: A Feasibility Study into Conservation, Welfare and H. M. Pereira.) pp. 3–23. (Springer: Cham, Switzerland.) and Industry Aspects.’ (Rural Industries Research and Development Newsome, D., Moore, S. A., and Dowling, R. K. (2002). ‘Natural Area Corporation: Canberra, ACT, Australia.) Tourism: Ecology Impacts and Management.’ (Channel View Publica- Cooney, R., Kasterine, A., MacMillan, D., Milledge, S., Nossal, K., Roe, D., tions: Bristol, UK.) and St Sas-Rolfes, M. (2015). ‘The Trade in Wildlife: A Framework to NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (2014). Reintrodu- Improve Biodiversity and Livelihood Outcomes.’ (International Trade cing Locally Extinct Mammals. Available at: https://www.environment. Centre: Geneva, Switzerland.) nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/threatened-species/saving-our- Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. The American species-program/threatened-species-conservation/featured-projects/ Economic Review 57, 347–359. reintroducing-locally-extinct-mammals (accessed 8 September 2020). Custodianship of native species The Rangeland Journal 321

NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (2019). Wildlife Wilson, G. (2004). Integrating kangaroos (Macropus sp.) and other wildlife Licenses. Available at: https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/licences- with agriculture in Australia. Game and Wildlife Science 21, 843–851. and-permits/wildlife-licences (accessed 8 September 2020). Wilson, G., and Edwards, M. (2008). Native wildlife on rangelands to Office of Environment and Heritage (2018). ‘Saving our Species Monitor- minimize methane and produce lower-emission meat: kangaroos versus ing, Evaluation and Reporting Guidelines for Conservation Projects.’ livestock. Conservation Letters 1, 119–128. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X. (Office of Environment and Heritage: Sydney, NSW, Australia.) 2008.00023.x Office of Environment and Heritage (2019). ‘Translocation Operational Wilson, G. R., and Edwards, M. (2019). Professional kangaroo population Policy.’ (Office of Environment and Heritage: Sydney, NSW, Australia.) control leads to better animal welfare, conservation outcomes and avoids Radford, J., Driscoll, D., Anderson, A., Wardle, G., Waryszaj, P., Green, P., waste. Australian Zoologist 40, 181–202. doi:10.7882/AZ.2018.043 and Klassen, M., Cosham, J., Vale, T., Mariette, M., et al. (2019). An Wilson, G., and Smetana, P. (1997). ‘Sustainable Economic Use of Native Open Letter to the Prime Minister from 248 Concerned Scientists. Australian Birds and Reptiles: Can Controlled Trade Improve Conser- Available at: https://www.envirolawsopenletter.com.au/ (accessed 8 vation of Species?’ (Rural Industries Research and Development Corpo- September 2020). ration: Canberra, ACT, Australia.) Ringma, J., Legge, S., Woinarski, J., Radford, J., Wintle, B., and Bode, M. Wilson, G. R., Hayward, M. W., and Wilson, C. (2017). Market-based (2018). Australia’s mammal fauna requires a strategic and enhanced incentives and private ownership of wildlife to remedy shortfalls network of predator-free havens. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2, 410– in government funding for conservation. Conservation Letters 10, 411. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0456-4 485–492. doi:10.1111/conl.12313 Sherwood, S., Grafton, Q., McDougall, T. J., England, M., Zhao, G., Bird, Wilson, G., Hayward, M. W., and Wilson, C. (2018). Trials of market-based M., Davis, T., Westoby, M., Rohling, E. J., Head, L., et al. (2020). An incentives to conserve wildlife. In: ‘Conservation through Sustainable Open Letter on Australian Bushfires and Climate: Urgent Need for Deep Use of Wildlife Conference’. (Eds G. Baxter, N. Finch and P. Murray.) Cuts in Carbon Emissions. Available at: https://laureatebushfirescli- pp. 206–213. (University of Queensland: Brisbane, Qld, Australia.) mate.wordpress.com/ (accessed 8 September 2020). Wintle, B. A., Cadenhead, N. C. R., Morgain, R. A., Legge, S. M., Bekessy, Shwiff, S. A., Sweeney, S. J., Elser, J. L., Miller, R. S., Farnsworth, M. L., S. A., Cantele, M., Possingham, H. P., Watson, J. E. M., Maron, M., Nol, P., Shwiff, S. S., and Anderson, A. M. (2016). A benefit-cost Keith, D. A., Garnett, S. T., Woinarski, J. C. Z., and Lindenmayer, D. B. analysis decision framework for mitigation of disease transmission at the (2019). Spending to save: what will it cost to halt Australia’s extinction wildlife–livestock interface. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10, 91–102. crisis? Conservation Letters 12, e12682. doi:10.1111/conl.12682 Stolton, S., Redford, K. H.,and Dudley, N. (2014). ‘The Futures of Privately Woinarski, J., Burbidge, A., and Harrison, P. (2014). ‘The Action Plan for Protected Areas.’ (International Union for the Conservation of Nature: Australian Mammals 2012.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic., Gland, Switzerland.) Australia.) Whisson, D. A., and Ashman, K. R. (2020). When an iconic native animal is Woinarski, J. C. Z., Braby, M. F., Burbidge, A. A., Coates, D., Garnett, S. T., overabundant: the koala in southern Australia. Conservation Science and Fensham, R. J., Legge, S. M., McKenzie, N. L., Silcock, J. L., and Practice 2, e188. doi:10.1111/csp2.188 Murphy, B. P. (2019). Reading the black book: the number, timing, Wikiquote contributors (2019). Jack Lang 1876–1975. Available at: https:// distribution and causes of listed extinctions in Australia. Biological en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Lang&oldid=2670995 (accessed Conservation 239, 108261. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108261 8 September 2020).

www.publish.csiro.au/journals/trj